# Get rid of the A-10 ????



## Hijinx

Budget cuts could ground 'beloved' A-10 Warthog aircraft

Getting rid of an aircraft that is already paid for and still doing the job so they can buy an aircraft that has yet to prove itself, doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## kom526

A-10s are awesome! Unless you are in an LAV-25 and the pilots really don't have their armor identification down cold.


----------



## b23hqb

The Warthog has been my favorite jet for decades once I saw it in training action in the 80's. No sense at all to take what is simply the best armor and general personnel vehicle destroying air platform ever invented and proven, and change it out - for what?

More SecDef/military industrial complex mindlessness.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

Keep the cuts coming!

It really pains me to see supposed "fiscally conservative Republicans" bitch and moan about the budget, but say things like:

...The Obama administration’s plans to cut the defense budget were “disappointing,” - Paul Ryan

"...the proposed defense budget would put the U.S. military’s ability to protect American interests abroad, provide a deterrent to attack, and provide security for allies at risk." - Marco Rubio

...it is being cheered by our enemies and that small cuts to our vast defense budget will “decimate our military capability.” - Allen West

In 2013 the top 20 military spenders spent $1.316 trillion on “defense-related expenditures.” The U.S. was responsible for an 44% percent of that spending.

Global Defense Budget Seen Climbing In 2014; First Total Increase Since 2009 As Russia Surpasses Britain And Saudi Arabia Continues Its Security Spending Spree

Even with the proposed reductions implemented, the U.S. Army will still be one of the largest in the world, and U.S. military spending will still be much larger than any other country’s.


----------



## dan0623_2000

*A-10*

I have geat admiration for the pilots of the A-10.  It takes great skill and a big set of gohunas to take a screaming jet down that low to the ground and provide support to the ground troops.


----------



## Vince

Tank killer.  What else do they have to do the job?


----------



## b23hqb

dan0623_2000 said:


> I have geat admiration for the pilots of the A-10.  It takes great skill and a big set of gohunas to take a screaming jet down that low to the ground and provide support to the ground troops.



Any aircraft and pilot under fire, for that matter. The A-10 is about, if not, the most heavily armored and pilot/engines protected, ground attack platform, and that was by design.

And what a design it is. So what if that design is 40 years old? If it still works better than anything else, don't fix it, govt.


----------



## Vince

b23hqb said:


> Any aircraft and pilot under fire, for that matter. The A-10 is about, if not, the most heavily armored and pilot/engines protected, ground attack platform, and that was by design.
> 
> And what a design it is. So what if that design is 40 years old? If it still works better than anything else, don't fix it, govt.


If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


----------



## b23hqb

Vince said:


> If it ain't broke, don't fix it.



You know the government - if it ain't broke, fix it until it is.


----------



## garyt27

Maybe they sell them to Brazil, to help pay for the F35. Brazil can convert them to run on sugar.


----------



## aps45819

The Air Force brass never wanted the A10. It puts them in a subservient role to the Army and they have tried to ground them every chance they get.


As soon as we need to fight somebody with tanks they bring them back


----------



## SEABREEZE 1957

"They" say the F-35 fills the role of the A-10.  They being Hagel;  Hagel boggles my mind. *I know it's Wiki, but it's accurate as much as I have researched. 

Chuck Hagel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## itsbob

Prior to Desert Storm AF was talking about getting rid of them and the Army was prepared to take them.. If nothing else for a surveillance platform the Army had been lacking for decades up to that point.

Desert Storm happened and the A-10 did a fantastic job and earned a great reputation... AF still didn't want it because it wasn't a sexy air to air platform.. But no way they could get rid of it after desert storm


----------



## b23hqb

itsbob said:


> Prior to Desert Storm AF was talking about getting rid of them and the Army was prepared to take them.. If nothing else for a surveillance platform the Army had been lacking for decades up to that point.
> 
> Desert Storm happened and the A-10 did a fantastic job and earned a great reputation... AF still didn't want it because it wasn't a sexy air to air platform.. But no way they could get rid of it after desert storm



I agree. Turn them over to the Army and Marines. Plenty of pilots in the USMC already, and the Army Air Corps has been around 30 years or so longer then the USAF.


----------



## GURPS

problem is, Zomies don't like the A-10

its not a sexy zoom and boom aircraft
[think Top Gun]

it does not get the women excited 

its like flying a cargo plane 

which Pilot is going to get more action a 'Fighter' Jock or some shelp flying a C-17


I never bought the argument an F-16 [now 35] moving @ 500 knts can do the same JOB loitering over a battle field


----------



## desertrat

Vince said:


> Tank killer.  What else do they have to do the job?



Hellfire missiles?

Hellfire Missile Hitting a Tank - YouTube


----------



## Crewdawg141

GURPS said:


> problem is, Zomies don't like the A-10
> 
> its not a sexy zoom and boom aircraft
> [think Top Gun]
> 
> it does not get the women excited
> 
> its like flying a cargo plane
> 
> which Pilot is going to get more action a 'Fighter' Jock or some shelp flying a C-17
> 
> 
> I never bought the argument an F-16 [now 35] moving @ 500 knts can do the same JOB loitering over a battle field



You are correct, the Zipper Suited Sun Gods do not flock to an A-10 as they do over a traditional Air to Air fighter.  The A-10 was designed as a ground attack and nothing else, the brass wants a multi-role aircraft that will falter and make the USAF pull the Warthogs back out of the Boneyard yet again.  Unless a fleet of Predators is launched at once they will never be able to pack the punch that 1 A-10 has.

As for action, the Heavy crews often get more as they have far more rotations into places where there are more than 15 women on the ground.  My friends that are on fighters have spent more time in the sandbox than I have and conversely I have spent a LOT more time in Europe than they ever will.  Ramstein and Sigonella are pleasurable places to be!   Just sayin'


----------



## Hijinx

Chris0nllyn said:


> Keep the cuts coming!
> 
> It really pains me to see supposed "fiscally conservative Republicans" bitch and moan about the budget, but say things like:
> 
> ...The Obama administration’s plans to cut the defense budget were “disappointing,” - Paul Ryan
> 
> "...the proposed defense budget would put the U.S. military’s ability to protect American interests abroad, provide a deterrent to attack, and provide security for allies at risk." - Marco Rubio
> 
> ...it is being cheered by our enemies and that small cuts to our vast defense budget will “decimate our military capability.” - Allen West
> 
> In 2013 the top 20 military spenders spent $1.316 trillion on “defense-related expenditures.” The U.S. was responsible for an 44% percent of that spending.
> 
> Global Defense Budget Seen Climbing In 2014; First Total Increase Since 2009 As Russia Surpasses Britain And Saudi Arabia Continues Its Security Spending Spree
> 
> Even with the proposed reductions implemented, the U.S. Army will still be one of the largest in the world, and U.S. military spending will still be much larger than any other country’s.



Power is what keeps the peace, not Diplomacy.

I am no Historian , but I can see what happened in WW2, a time when everyone was cutting the military and it took so long to recover.
IMO we could not recover today. Our manufacturing processes have been sent to the 4 corners of the world.
Before we could manufacture the supplies we would need to fight we would first have to manufacture the manufacturing.


----------



## itsbob

desertrat said:


> Hellfire missiles?
> 
> Hellfire Missile Hitting a Tank - YouTube



Shoot, C-130s (refuelers even) carry those..  can you name a less sexy aircraft?


----------



## GURPS

Crewdawg141 said:


> As for action, *the Heavy crews often get more as they have far more rotations into places where there are more than 15 women on the ground.*  My friends that are on fighters have spent more time in the sandbox than I have and conversely I have spent a LOT more time in Europe than they ever will.  Ramstein and Sigonella are pleasurable places to be!   Just sayin'






Well Played ....... 

just let women fly A-10's .... hehehe removes the macho factor


----------



## Chris0nllyn

Hijinx said:


> Power is what keeps the peace, not Diplomacy.
> 
> I am no Historian , but I can see what happened in WW2, a time when everyone was cutting the military and it took so long to recover.
> IMO we could not recover today. Our manufacturing processes have been sent to the 4 corners of the world.
> Before we could manufacture the supplies we would need to fight we would first have to manufacture the manufacturing.



Is it?

Iceland has no military, and is the most peaceful nation in the world. Iceland also only has 47 prisoners per 100,000 residents, so in total, the country has less than 150 inmates. In contrast the U.S. has 716 prisoners per every 100,000 people, and millions of inmates as we all know. 

Denmark is downsiziing their military. It also boatsts a homicide rate of 1 murder per every 100,000 residents is just a fifth of the United States' rate. 

New Zealand cancelled the purchase of fighter jets in order to focus on economic priorities (imagine that!). While they have a relatively high incarceration rate, they are also working on a "common bordeR" agree emnt with Australia. Imagine the US doing that with Mexico!

In Austria violent crime is extremely low, and military spending is only 0.8% of the GDP. In contrast, U.S. military expenditures are equivalent to 4.7% of America's GDP. 

Switzerland may have tons of guns per capita, but they aren't involved in conflicts around the world. they also do not export any weapons to countries involved in conflict. Switzerland is very tranquil, with extremely low levels of violent crime. 

Japan's constitution prevents its defense forces from developing "war potential," which means that Japan is not a military threat to its neighbors nowadays. The country only has 55 prisoners per every 100,000 people and gun purchasing laws are extremely strict.

Finland is also looking at ways to cut defense spending. This northern European country, wedged between Russia and Sweden, has not been part of any international conflicts since World War II. 

Canadians do not seem to be keen on military spending, their government has actually cut the army's budget by 22% since 2010. Military expenditure which is equivalent to 1% of GDP, and you'll remember that US's military expenditures is 4.7% of GDP.

While Swededn is one of Europe's biggest arms exporter, Sweden has less than 1 murder, per every 100,000 residents. The country registered 9,200 robberies in 2011, while in that same year, the US tallied more than 350,000 robberies. 

Nothing have happened on a gloabl level since WWII. The US has stuck it's nose where it doesn't belong, again. We don't need a massive military.


----------



## aps45819

Do any of those countries subsidize criminals like we do?


----------



## czygvtwkr

Chris0nllyn said:


> Is it?
> 
> Iceland has no military, and is the most peaceful nation in the world. Iceland also only has 47 prisoners per 100,000 residents, so in total, the country has less than 150 inmates. In contrast the U.S. has 716 prisoners per every 100,000 people, and millions of inmates as we all know.
> 
> Denmark is downsiziing their military. It also boatsts a homicide rate of 1 murder per every 100,000 residents is just a fifth of the United States' rate.
> 
> New Zealand cancelled the purchase of fighter jets in order to focus on economic priorities (imagine that!). While they have a relatively high incarceration rate, they are also working on a "common bordeR" agree emnt with Australia. *Imagine the US doing that with Mexico!*
> 
> In Austria violent crime is extremely low, and military spending is only 0.8% of the GDP. In contrast, U.S. military expenditures are equivalent to 4.7% of America's GDP.
> 
> Switzerland may have tons of guns per capita, but they aren't involved in conflicts around the world. they also do not export any weapons to countries involved in conflict. Switzerland is very tranquil, with extremely low levels of violent crime.
> 
> Japan's constitution prevents its defense forces from developing "war potential," which means that Japan is not a military threat to its neighbors nowadays. The country only has 55 prisoners per every 100,000 people and gun purchasing laws are extremely strict.
> 
> Finland is also looking at ways to cut defense spending. This northern European country, wedged between Russia and Sweden, has not been part of any international conflicts since World War II.
> 
> Canadians do not seem to be keen on military spending, their government has actually cut the army's budget by 22% since 2010. Military expenditure which is equivalent to 1% of GDP, and you'll remember that US's military expenditures is 4.7% of GDP.
> 
> While Swededn is one of Europe's biggest arms exporter, Sweden has less than 1 murder, per every 100,000 residents. The country registered 9,200 robberies in 2011, while in that same year, the US tallied more than 350,000 robberies.
> 
> Nothing have happened on a gloabl level since WWII. The US has stuck it's nose where it doesn't belong, again. We don't need a massive military.




Put a few hundred miles of ocean between us and Mexico and I bet the border situation would be better. 

If those European countries didn't think that we were protecting them I bet they would spend a little more on defense.


----------



## Larry Gude

What weapons does the US really need? 

We could have used nuclear weapons to get Saddam out of Kuwait in '91 by either directly bombing enough to get him to move or make sure he believed we would do it starting with incremental attacks. Instead, we went 500,000 men, thousands of pieces of armor and artillery, aircraft galore and naval stuff. 

There was no need and no reason to do that. None, in terms of national security. 

Our next folly, in '03, was more of the same but...more. This time we set up to do 'regime' change. Afghanistan is more of the same; war for...economic reasons. 

All of this stuff is not for national security; it is for economic reasons.


----------



## czygvtwkr

Larry Gude said:


> What weapons does the US really need?
> 
> We could have used nuclear weapons to get Saddam out of Kuwait in '91 by either directly bombing enough to get him to move or make sure he believed we would do it starting with incremental attacks. Instead, we went 500,000 men, thousands of pieces of armor and artillery, aircraft galore and naval stuff.
> 
> There was no need and no reason to do that. None, in terms of national security.
> 
> Our next folly, in '03, was more of the same but...more. This time we set up to do 'regime' change. Afghanistan is more of the same; war for...economic reasons.
> 
> All of this stuff is not for national security; it is for economic reasons.



There is a fine line between economic and national security,  I don't see that much of a stretch saying economic security is national security.  Most wars have been fought over economics when you break things down into their simplest forms.  

Need is an interesting word, most people throw it around entirely too much.


----------



## RPMDAD

aps45819 said:


> Do any of those countries subsidize criminals like we do?



aps, are you talking about Obama again?


----------



## Larry Gude

czygvtwkr said:


> There is a fine line between economic and national security,  I don't see that much of a stretch saying economic security is national security.  Most wars have been fought over economics when you break things down into their simplest forms.
> 
> Need is an interesting word, most people throw it around entirely too much.



Ah, yes but, that is the crux, the heart of the matter; what IS economic security? A sound dollar is anathema to growth and growth is the new economic god whereby, BECAUSE we so devalue the dollar with most everything we do, discourage savings, obliterating the value of blue collar labor, growth is the only tonic for that sort of economic strategery. Thus, build new wiz bangs to replace perfectly sound platforms. I mean, think about it; in the economy most of us learned as a kid, the A10 would be THE thing to do. Paid for, proven, cheap, robust. 

Not no more.


----------



## czygvtwkr

Larry Gude said:


> Ah, yes but, that is the crux, the heart of the matter; what IS economic security? A sound dollar is anathema to growth and growth is the new economic god whereby, BECAUSE we so devalue the dollar with most everything we do, discourage savings, obliterating the value of blue collar labor, growth is the only tonic for that sort of economic strategery. Thus, build new wiz bangs to replace perfectly sound platforms. I mean, think about it; in the economy most of us learned as a kid, the A10 would be THE thing to do. Paid for, proven, cheap, robust.
> 
> Not no more.



It might not be entirely that simple.  I think a big part of it is that Air Force just not wanting to be in the role of ground support.  But aging aircraft have usually had their life extended multiple times.  Aluminum is a finicky metal,  it has no lower fatigue limit, meaning it will eventually fatigue without even being over stressed, couple that with age and certain items just no longer being available (I had an issue finding certain connectors for an aging aircraft not long ago).  The Navy retiring the F-14, saved a lot of maintenance costs, otherwise it was a fine aircraft that many favored over the F/A-18.


----------



## Merlin99

GURPS said:


> problem is, Zomies don't like the A-10
> 
> its not a sexy zoom and boom aircraft
> [think Top Gun]
> 
> it does not get the women excited
> 
> its like flying a cargo plane
> 
> which Pilot is going to get more action a 'Fighter' Jock or some shelp flying a C-17
> 
> 
> I never bought the argument an F-16 [now 35] moving @ 500 knts can do the same JOB loitering over a battle field



There's talk of bringing out new variants of both the OV-1 and OV-10.


----------



## Merlin99

P-8


----------



## Merlin99

You think a woman on a Harley gets turned on, wait till you get one flying around in a strap on 20mm cannon.


----------



## DoWhat

Merlin99 said:


> P-8


$hit.


----------



## Larry Gude

czygvtwkr said:


> It might not be entirely that simple.  I think a big part of it is that Air Force just not wanting to be in the role of ground support.  But aging aircraft have usually had their life extended multiple times.  Aluminum is a finicky metal,  it has no lower fatigue limit, meaning it will eventually fatigue without even being over stressed, couple that with age and certain items just no longer being available (I had an issue finding certain connectors for an aging aircraft not long ago).  The Navy retiring the F-14, saved a lot of maintenance costs, otherwise it was a fine aircraft that many favored over the F/A-18.



Interesting stuff but, that's not where I was going with this; how much army, navy, air force, marines, do we really NEED in the first place? Look what we've deployed and used in defense of a bunch of Saudi's with box cutters who would have most likely been stopped by the FBI had they been allowed to do so. We, as American's, go about things in the most expensive, least efficient way possible AND aren't getting good results. The US is much diminished this past 11 years and there isn't any two ways about it; using what we have have not served us well. We have hugely wasted the efforts and sacrifices of our people in uniform. We've used them instead of dealing with the larger strategic issues.


----------



## Baja28

Merlin99 said:


> You think a woman on a Harley gets turned on, wait till you get one flying around in a strap on 20mm cannon.


A-10 has a 30mm cannon.


----------



## Severa

Couple of questions cause I'm curious:

1) I get the P-3s are older aircraft. Other than age of aircraft, what's wrong with them that we need to completely scrap them and go to the P-8? I mean, really, aren't we flying B52 Stratofortresses that have been around longer than I have? (I just turned 37 this past Nov) they just tweak here and there and ZOOM! off they go (while coughing up enough smoke to piss off a greenie, which always brings a smile to my face)

2) The A-10 is an awesome bird. Basically a huge ass gun wrapped in a super tough aircraft. What aircraft do we have now that has the maneuverability AND the survivability (if that's a word) WITH the firepower of the A-10? Cause honestly, I don't think we have that in our current fleet. I mean I hear all the hullabaloo over the F-35 but so far it's not impressing me.


----------



## itsbob

Merlin99 said:


> There's talk of bringing out new variants of both the OV-1 and OV-10.


 Not for us..  It's going to be used in the A-10 role for countries that can't afford aircraft like the A-10..


----------



## Merlin99

Baja28 said:


> A-10 has a 30mm cannon.


Sorry, I was posting about the girl version.


----------



## Larry Gude

itsbob said:


> Not for us..  It's going to be used in the A-10 role for countries that can't afford aircraft like the A-10..



What if we were to do a weapons exchange say, an Affordable Weapons Act, whereby we set a group of basic weapons plans and you choose the one that is right for you, your tribe and your budget?


----------



## GURPS

Chris0nllyn said:


> Iceland has no military, and is the most peaceful nation in the world. Iceland also only has 47 prisoners per 100,000 residents, so in total, the country has less than 150 inmates. In contrast the U.S. has 716 prisoners per every 100,000 people, and millions of inmates as we all know.




Iceland is one of the whitest homogenous places on the planet .... and Al Sharptoune [and other race baters]are not there string up the Africans


----------



## czygvtwkr

GURPS said:


> Iceland is one of the whitest homogenous places on the planet .... and Al Sharptoune [and other race baters]are not there string up the Africans



They even have a dating app for their phones just to make sure that they aren't related too closely before they get busy.


----------



## aps45819

czygvtwkr said:


> They even have a dating app for their phones just to make sure that they aren't related too closely before they get busy.



They could market that in St. Marys


----------



## DoWhat

Severa said:


> Couple of questions cause I'm curious:
> 
> 1) I get the P-3s are older aircraft. Other than age of aircraft, what's wrong with them that we need to completely scrap them



The EP-3 will be flying until 2025.


----------

